Peopel watch that garbage for the same reason that they watch the neighbors fight and that they slow down to look at road accidents - the selfish desire to claim superiority over someone else's unfortunate life.
You never have commented on the background. Now that we're all done slinging mud, what do you think? Better?
Your page is now legible, congratulations. No more black-on-black text. Of course, I never read your journal on your page, but hey, if I ever did it would now be possible. :-)
That's not only okay, but personally understandable. There's only one good thing that ever came ofreading LJ on my page, and that was the half-second of accomplishment I felt.
Well, as I point out in my latest Thought, one of the benefits of LJ's community aspect of blogging is that you can aggregate all the people you like to read into one page. I also now have RSS feeds in Trillian, so I can keep an eye on other bloggers that export to XML, like Wil Wheaton. I'm a geek and I'm proud!
The first one was plenty, thanks. Although it was mentioned to me the other day and I realized it was true - after scrupulously avoiding using his name in the LJ I now cannot remember it at all. And the reason I did that was because there were a lot of people in the Deuce who read my page and my LJ, including the BC.
That leads to another interesting ponderance. We tend to spend time making our LastN page looking just-so, yet nobody ever looks at it, even ourselves. Look at the little girls that spend hours and hours making tiny iframes filled with scrolling content, changing the colors of their scrollbars and all that rot. Nobody ever looks at it, after they've been "friended" anyway. Nearly a total waste of effort.
And, based on some of those iframe-based low-res-required designs, time better spent doing almost anything else.
Tears nearly sprung to my eyes. You mean man! How dare you tear down my dreams?!
I actually have a number of friends and relations who, since they do not LJ, read mine solely through my page; it's therefore no real waste of effort to make it legible.
I assume (although I haven't checked) that my non-LJ friends and family just read my site, and the LJ content there is embedded in the CSS of my site. Once I tweaked the color-free, no-graphics style for embedding, I've never touched that style again.
Sure, yours works just fine and dandy. I just wanted to get rid of frames and make my journal look like an integral part of my site. If my site logs hadn't shown that almost every visitor to my site used a browser capable of DHTML, I probably would have stuck with the frames I used last year.
How they could do another season is beyond me, that was the worst show I have ever seen,know wonder her dead husband went after her she reminds me of trashy people how gross
Once upon a time, Anna Nicole was a hero of mine. But now, she's a sad, pathetic, damaged loser, and that show is a nightmare. It comes of as a creation put forth JUST so people can laugh at her, and that's sad. I love the Osbournes, hate the Anna Nicole Show.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
You never have commented on the background. Now that we're all done slinging mud, what do you think? Better?
no subject
Your page is now legible, congratulations. No more black-on-black text. Of course, I never read your journal on your page, but hey, if I ever did it would now be possible. :-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And, based on some of those iframe-based low-res-required designs, time better spent doing almost anything else.
no subject
I actually have a number of friends and relations who, since they do not LJ, read mine solely through my page; it's therefore no real waste of effort to make it legible.
no subject
no subject
Site Design
no subject
I watched it once. That was enuff for me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
But, it's a popular show, so of course it got renewed.
no subject
Re:
no subject